bug#40549: More usability issues:

[zimoun]

Hi Ludo,

Sorry, I am not compliant and reorder your quotes to ease the
discussion -- from my point of view. :-)


On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 10:51, Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> wrote:

> However (srfi srfi-37) does it as we see it now.  Fixing it would mean
> implementing a different option parser.

Yes or add a lot of complexity.
Both appears to me wrong.  Such corner cases do not deserve one or the other.


> I think there are option parsers that “correctly” deal with the
> ambiguity that arises for instance with “-I -p foo” (is ‘-p’ the
> argument to ‘-I’ or something else?).  Perhaps libc’s argp does it
> right.

I have never deeply dove into srfi-37 and 'option' but from my
understanding, it is not possible.  Somehow, the issue comes from
srfi-37 and srfi-37 should consider that if an argument starts with
dash, then it is not an argument and turn it into an option.


> Nothing new here, and everything is properly documented.

I am not sure.  The manual says, for example:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
‘--list-installed[=REGEXP]’
‘-I [REGEXP]’
     List the currently installed packages in the specified profile,
     with the most recently installed packages shown last.  When REGEXP
     is specified, list only installed packages whose name matches
     REGEXP.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

which is somehow inaccurate.  The REGEXP is not optional for the short
option '-I'.  And that's true for all the short options with optional
argument, if I understand correctly.  For example, "guix package -d -p
/path/to/profile" fails.


Moreover, the distinction between 'action' and 'query' is already
stated so why not underline that composing actions make sense
(transaction) but composing query not?


> > However, main of us are used to read from left to right so it seems
> > more natural to write:
> >
> >     guix package --action1 --action2  # (a)
> > than
> >     guix package --action2 --action1  # (b)
> >
> > in other words, the fix should be to simply 'reverse opts' and the CLI
> > will read (a) instead of the current (b).  My only concern is about
> > backward compatibility.
>
> We’ll need to check exactly what will behave differently.  If the tests
> don’t catch anything, I think we’re fine.  Most likely, we’re talking
> about corner cases like ‘-S x -d y’, which probably very few people
> tried.

Ok, on this light, let first point the corner cases.


All the best,
simon